Wasteland Wasteland 2 Pre-Release Discussion Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[imweasel]

I seem to recall some jRPG on the PS2 had a circular movement range (Dragon Quarter maybe?) but it didn't have grids. I mean if circle radius free movement is implemented...why fucking bother with grids at all?

Free movement would be the best for CRPGs. It would be a pain in the ass to use in PnP though. But who cares, Fallout didn't use it, so it is automatically shit anyway. :D

 

[tuluse]

Free movement would be the best for CRPGs. It would be a pain in the ass to use in PnP though. But who cares, Fallout didn't use it, so it is automatically shit anyway. :D

Warhammer uses free movement and plenty of other systems do.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Jesus Christ, this guy... hurr, my retarded shit is pointed out as retarded, quickly let's pull out a strawman about Fallout.
Why the hell would it be best for CRPGs? Every gonna tell us that? Do you have anything besides "it's realisticzors"? Because nobody cares about that in CRPGs. Whoever does, has no business playing CRPGs in the first place.

 

[Darkzone]

imwaesel the strawman arguments does not validate your complete broken system, in opposite it lets you look like a fool, before an audience with knowledge.
You have no knowledge at all about algorithmic and geometry. You can repeat yourself as often as you want, but nonsense stays always nonsense, you cannot calculate the necessary APs to reach a field with a circle. A wall that cuts through the entire circle will invalidates it, but the circle will say that you can reach it. An obstacle like a wall going through the half of the circle will invalidate your calculations, because the reachable fields will not be a circle anymore. Nearly any obstacle within the circle will invalidates you. In your first example you have added 8 additional fields for the following cost: 1 + square root of 2. And that is not 2 but rounded down a 2.41. Therefore it was false, in opposition to toro's example where the cost always were 2.
You are thinking that you are smarter the people (like Dijkstra) with 2x(Your IQ), that have studied for years that kind of problems and have developed algorithms to solve them.
You are making a clown out of yourself.

The accessibility should be determined by a greedy algorithm with no directional preferences.

Also to add is that i have even mentioned that there are reasons for using the square grid, some features can be only applied to it.

HiddenX
Did you knew A* before i mentioned it? If not, then i am glad to have at least not wasted my time. To the example, they are not using the diagonal movement, the resulting diagonal line is the a middle value of the generated possibilities.
Between 0:46 and 0:47 you can see this, if they would use the diagonal movement, then the line should go through the edge connections of the wall. But it displays good the overall working of a A*.
By the way a mad hatter or the hatter or a simple victorian figure?
Or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JoxISdBzmY :D

tuluse and HiddenX
For the part of the free movement (which is what i would really prefer) there are some solutions but the most common is a gradient solution or better said a potential field.
The problem of a potential field are only the local minima (This looks funny in games, because you have many enemies in specific field that is blocked by an obstacle and they are circling around in that field.).
If you have interest you should look at some videos on youtube.
But there is also the way to make the map into a grid, in which for a accessibility, the fields with obstacles would be marked as not accessible, and the possible movement will be determaind by a greedy algorithm.

FeelTheRads
He does not feel the impacts, lacks the necessary cognitive capability.

 

[Gord]

imweasel is there going to be some point where you explain how your "real" movement works with AP's?

I'm not exactly sure how imweasel envisioned it, nor do I (more importantly) know how it will work in Wasteland 2.
If I would want to use a square grid for unit placement without succumbing to some of the limitations (like less nearest neighbours, problematic diagonal movement, etc.), I would translate AP to the distance that can be reached on the map (say, e.g. 1 AP=2m or such), then let the game calculate the distance from the starting point to the end point, deduct the resulting amount of AP and let my char move there directly - from what I've seen in the demo it looks as if units have no issue with diagonal movement outside of combat.
Whether a certain end point can be reached would depend on whether the center of this cell is within the accessible area determined by your AP (which would be determined by a circle as long as there are no obstacles).
I also don't see a big issue with attacking diagonally, the same things would apply, with the melee weapon potentially deciding if your reach is far enough for a diagonal attack or not.
The main purpose of the square grid (or any grid) would then be to provide a simple way for unit placement (and things like blocking paths with your units, etc).

Anyway, I think that depending on the implementation, a square grid does not have to be inferior to a hex-grid, for the purpose of combat.
Getting all worked up over it seems pretty pointless, esp. since we still don't know how it will really work in the final product.

 

[Helton]

Squares vs. Circles. Which are better and why?

Only on the Codex.

 

[FeelTheRads]

At least it's more monocle than Tali vs Miranda or whatever the hell people discuss nowadays.

 

[tuluse]

I'm not exactly sure how imweasel envisioned it, nor do I (more importantly) know how it will work in Wasteland 2.
If I would want to use a square grid for unit placement without succumbing to some of the limitations (like less nearest neighbours, problematic diagonal movement, etc.), I would translate AP to the distance that can be reached on the map (say, e.g. 1 AP=2m or such), then let the game calculate the distance from the starting point to the end point, deduct the resulting amount of AP and let my char move there directly - from what I've seen in the demo it looks as if units have no issue with diagonal movement outside of combat.
Whether a certain end point can be reached would depend on whether the center of this cell is within the accessible area determined by your AP (which would be determined by a circle as long as there are no obstacles).
I also don't see a big issue with attacking diagonally, the same things would apply, with the melee weapon potentially deciding if your reach is far enough for a diagonal attack or not.
The main purpose of the square grid (or any grid) would then be to provide a simple way for unit placement (and things like blocking paths with your units, etc).

Anyway, I think that depending on the implementation, a square grid does not have to be inferior to a hex-grid, for the purpose of combat.
Getting all worked up over it seems pretty pointless, esp. since we still don't know how it will really work in the final product.

Let's say 1 meter = 1 AP, and your squares are each a meter wide. How many action points does it take to move to a diagonal square?

Or lets say 2 meters are 1 AP, each square is still 1 meter. How many actions points does it take to move one square over?

 

[Gord]

Let's say 1 meter = 1 AP, and your squares are each a meter wide. How many action points does it take to move to a diagonal square?

Or lets say 2 meters are 1 AP, each square is still 1 meter. How many actions points does it take to move one square over?

Depends on how the AP are managed internally, but for sake of simplicity, with 2AP=1m, and each sqare being 1x1m, the diagonal is close enough to 1.5 for that multiplier to be acceptable given the average distance traveled in one combat round, making 1 diagonal unit cost 3 AP.
That would still lead to a certain AP inflation, though, so I'm honestly not a big fan of that allocation.

However - looking at the video, they didn't even go for 1AP=1square, but something closer to 1square=0.5AP, so the formula behind it might anyway be more complex.

 

[HiddenX]

HiddenX
Did you knew A* before i mentioned it? If not, then i am glad to have at least not wasted my time. To the example, they are not using the diagonal movement, the resulting diagonal line is the a middle value of the generated possibilities.
Between 0:46 and 0:47 you can see this, if they would use the diagonal movement, then the line should go through the edge connections of the wall. But it displays good the overall working of a A*.
By the way a mad hatter or the hatter or a simple victorian figure?
Or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JoxISdBzmY :D

I know the A* algorithm, but I used it only for operations research solutions (business software using graph-models) so far - I'm not a game developer

 

[Brother None]

However - looking at the video, they didn't even go for 1AP=1square, but something closer to 1square=0.5AP, so the formula behind it might anyway be more complex.

AP-per-square is influenced by the character's speed attribute. So it differs per character.

 

[imweasel]

imwaesel the strawman arguments does not validate your complete broken system, in opposite it lets you look like a fool, before an audience with knowledge.
You have no knowledge at all about algorithmic and geometry. You can repeat yourself as often as you want, but nonsense stays always nonsense, you cannot calculate the necessary APs to reach a field with a circle.

My god. You cannot read, you cannot comprehend, you are just about the stupidest mother fucker I have ever seen on this forum (sorry, but that has to be said). And a annoying one for that matter.
I did not invent a system, I did not envision anything, I did not invent the square grid system and I didn't do anything or change anything other than what is currently in other games with sqaure grids. Your feeble mind just cannot comprehend this fact for some reason.

For the last time, the red circle represents only ideal movement, and maximum movement on the grid (in my example for 2 AP) should be close to this ideal movement, otherwise it will look awkward (see below; that is the reason why the 4 corner tiles are cut out). Ths size of the circle for 2AP is of course also dependant on the size of the squares on the grid.

A wall that cuts through the entire circle will invalidates it, but the circle will say that you can reach it. An obstacle like a wall going through the half of the circle will invalidate your calculations, because the reachable fields will not be a circle anymore. Nearly any obstacle within the circle will invalidates you. In your first example you have added 8 additional fields for the following cost: 1 + square root of 2. And that is not 2 but rounded down a 2.41. Therefore it was false, in opposition to toro's example where the cost always were 2.
You are thinking that you are smarter the people (like Dijkstra) with 2x(Your IQ), that have studied for years that kind of problems and have developed algorithms to solve them.
You are making a clown out of yourself.

I seriously cannot facepalm enough. If there is an object on the grid, then you cannot enter the tiles where the objects are lying. This is common sense.

The black tiles are the legendary "Wall of Retardation". You can of course NOT walk through the wall. And as you can see (well, not you...) nothing changes. You just walk in a direction that is not blocked off. Why do you think that I am saying you can walk through walls? I never said that you don't use the grid for movement. The red circle does not mean that you can walk through walls or any other objects. Get through your god damn skull you idiot.

Here, I made it even more retard proof, because I am tried of your ridiculous whining. The black tiles are the wall (cannot be entered) and the tiles behind the wall cannot be entered either because they are blocked off. Woooooow.

 

[Lhynn]

Im sorry to bring down the intelectual level of this thread by asking this but... what the fuck are you guys even arguing about with such passion? if you are talking about grid based movement and all that crap why not make it like the one they got in silent storm and be done with it?
Its very good, very precise and not noticeable at all.

 

[imweasel]

That's a good question Lhynn. I don't understand it myself.

All I said was that a square grid is perfectly fine (a hex grid too for that matter), and look what happened.

 

[Darkzone]

Your circle says that the fields are that you have crossed out are accessible and can be reached with to steps. Every automatic agent would fuck up in your example.
But you cannot comprehend it because you lack the cognitive skills and capabilities. But since you beg for it, and some people have fisted you.
I show you an example where your circle says that a field can be reached with 2 steps (transitions), but in reality it needs more.
Try to enter the field with the red 0 with 2 steps. You are stating that you can count the steps with the circle so the circle says you can reach it with 2 steps. Please do it.

A person who is stupid, does not know that it is stupid, because it lacks the necessary capabilities to recognize it.
imweasels mathematics skill 0 points.

 

[imweasel]

Darkzone
You can move a maximum of 2 tiles and you can't walk through the wall. What makes you think you can hit that tile?

YOU CAN ONLY MOVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO TILES. YOU CANNOT WALK THROUGH WALLS. THAT TILE IS THEREFORE BLOCKED OFF BY THE WALL. YOU CANNOT REACH IT.

How often do I have to repeat myself? You are such a stupid mother fucker that I don't even know where to start.

 

[HiddenX]

What Darkzone is trying to say, is:

A circle around square A gives you only a set of squares that are interior of the circle and can possibly be reached from A. The circle says nothing about:

a) is a square B in the circle is actually reachable from A (it could be completely blocked)?
b) how many APs do you need for walking from A to B (going around all barriers)?

You need an algorithm for that, for example A*.
In such an algorithm you have to rate certain moves (diagonal, vertical, horizontal, round a corner) to calculate the total AP number.

Easy!

 

[imweasel]

The circle represents only ideal movement. The game runs purely on the grid just like endless amounts of other games.

If it is blocked off, then you can of course not reach that tile. Jesus Christ, what is so hard to understand?

 

[FeelTheRads]

For the last time, the red circle represents only ideal movement, and maximum movement on the grid (in my example for 2 AP) should be close to this ideal movement, otherwise it will look awkward (see below; that is the reason why the 4 corner tiles are cut out).

Ideal blah blah blah ideal blah blah blah... still don't see anything about why is this ideal.

And you fucking fucktard, if you cut the corners, it's not a circle anymore. Even if you add them, it's not either, it's a fucking square. No matter how you do it, you won't move the same distance in all directions if you're going end up straight in the center of a square which is what will happen with a grid and which is why a grid is there in the first place. Goddamn it, you really can't let go of this retardation.

 

[imweasel]

For the last time, the red circle represents only ideal movement, and maximum movement on the grid (in my example for 2 AP) should be close to this ideal movement, otherwise it will look awkward (see below; that is the reason why the 4 corner tiles are cut out).

Ideal blah blah blah ideal blah blah blah... still don't see anything about why is this ideal.

And you fucking fucktard, if you cut the corners, it's not a circle anymore. Even if you add them, it's not either, it's a fucking square. No matter how you do it, you won't move the same distance in all directions if you're going end up straight in the center of a square which is what will happen with a grid and which is why a grid is there in the first place. Goddamn it, you really can't let go of this retardation.

The other god damn retard is back again too.

I said that total movement should be close to the circle, because that is ideal. It does not makes sense to be able to run e.g. 14 meters (10 tiles diagonally) in one direction and 10 meters in the other (10 tiles horizontally/vertically). It does not have to be perfect and will never be perfect with a grid (either a sqaure grid or a hex grid), you can only improve the accuracy if you choose a smaller grid.

But why should I tell you that, you are too fucking retarded to understand anyway.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Jesus Christ. It's not fucking ideal. If there's a grid and proper AP cost, the "ideal" circle if fucking irrelevant you moron.
And your example is not even fucking close to that "ideal" shit you keep blabbering about.

It does not makes sense to be able to run 14 meters (10 tiles diagonally) in one direction and 10 meters in the other (10 tiles horizontally/vertically).

But it makes sense to walk 2 squares vertically and horizontally, but just 1 diagonally. It's almost ideal, one would say.

 

[Darkzone]

But to a more mysterious question.
Why Imweasel has been not thrown out of this forum?

 

[imweasel]

Jesus Christ. It's not fucking ideal. If there's a grid and proper AP cost, the "ideal" circle if fucking irrelevant you moron.
And your example is not even fucking close to that "ideal" shit you keep blabbering about.

Sorry, that you don't understand.

Here, look:

But it makes sense to walk 2 squares vertically and horizontally, but just 1 diagonally. It's almost ideal, one would say.

Yes totally retarded.

Games shouldn't do that, why do they do that then? Oh, because it makes sense.

 

[imweasel]

But to a more mysterious question.
Why Imweasel has been not thrown out of this forum?

You don't get thrown out just for trying to explain something to aggressive retards.

 

[Darkzone]

So no matter what nonsense Imweasel will say, how many people Imweasel will insult, he will still be there?
Can we make a vote for throwing him out ?